Population has increased everywhere, if the population has stayed the same then there will have been net migration from the area.

An odd conclusion! If the population has stayed the same then surely there has been no net migration inwards or outwards.

In any case, the point I made was that the prevalence of new housing in many of those areas suggests that the population is at least stable, and may be increasing. I'll leave you to check the census figures from times past.

"if the population has stayed the same then there will have been net migration from the area."

You cannot deduce that.

Can't I?

The UK population has increased from just about 50 million to over 60 million in my lifetime. Most of this is down to births outweighing deaths not migration; we haven't had 10 million migrants move to the UK.

I'd like to know just where you think that deaths have exceeding births in the UK.

The UK population has increased from just about 50 million to over 60 million in my lifetime. Most of this is down to births outweighing deaths not migration; we haven't had 10 million migrants move to the UK.

I'd like to know just where you think that deaths have exceeding births in the UK.

Have a look at some of the headline data from the 2011 census. Over half the population increase in England and Wales over the last decade has indeed been through immigration.

Have a look at some of the headline data from the 2011 census. Over half the population increase in England and Wales over the last decade has indeed been through immigration.

In which case then there has been a 10% increase simply due to births exceeding deaths. You would expect Wakefield to be broadly in line with this and have at least 5% growth. Hence a population that remained the same would be indicative of a net migration away from the district.

New housing per se isn't a necessarily indicative of a growth in population since there has been a fall in the average number of people in one house due to changes in society e,g, increase in divorce rates.

The mathematics behind it are very simple and you are a maths professor.

If you wanted to make a concrete point, you could certainly do so.

According to the ONS http://www.wakefield...011/default.htm wakefield had a population in 2011 of 325800according to figures sourced from the ONS and published on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wakefield in 2001 the population was 315172that's a 3% increase in population.According to the ONS figures for 2001 longterm unemployment in Wakefield was 1.04% of the population aged 16-74, the national figure was 1.01% and the west Yorkshire figure as a whole was 1.11%between the 2001 and 2011 census figures the population of England increased from 49,138,831 to 53,013,000 that's a 7.3% increase.

Perhaps you could explain how those figures support your delusions hypothesis of population decline and deprivation

According to the ONS http://www.wakefield...011/default.htm wakefield had a population in 2011 of 325800according to figures sourced from the ONS and published on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wakefield in 2001 the population was 315172that's a 3% increase in population.According to the ONS figures for 2001 longterm unemployment in Wakefield was 1.04% of the population aged 16-74, the national figure was 1.01% and the west Yorkshire figure as a whole was 1.11%between the 2001 and 2011 census figures the population of England increased from 49,138,831 to 53,013,000 that's a 7.3% increase.

Perhaps you could explain how those figures support your delusions hypothesis of population decline and deprivation

Perhaps it might help if you read what I said

Tbf I think people moving away from the area looking for work might have something to do with that.

I'm having difficulty finding where I said that the population declined. Perhaps your superior powers of reasoning could be employed in tracking it down for me.

I'm having difficulty finding where I said that the population declined. Perhaps your superior powers of reasoning could be employed in tracking it down for me.

Tbf I think people moving away from the area looking for work might have something to do with that.

Population has increased everywhere, if the population has stayed the same then there will have been net migration from the area.

In which case then there has been a 10% increase simply due to births exceeding deaths. You would expect Wakefield to be broadly in line with this and have at least 5% growth. Hence a population that remained the same would be indicative of a net migration away from the district.

New housing per se isn't a necessarily indicative of a growth in population since there has been a fall in the average number of people in one house due to changes in society e,g, increase in divorce rates.

You continually bash the drum of net migration away from an area, net migration away means decline, it means more people moved away than moved in.This has been shown anecdotally and then statistically to be billy ###### but you are now trying to argue that what you said is not what you said, which still doesn't get away from the point that Martyn made about some mining areas doing better now than when the mines were open before Thatcher came to power.Maybe it's Martyn's slight resemblance to Gerry Adams, they both have beards after all, and the fact that this wasn't in the Guardian that is confusing you.

Again you seem to ignore births and deaths perhaps nobody is ever born or dies where you live.

Let's try it again but dumbed down a bit.

The population would remain stable only if there was no net migration AND the number of births and deaths was the same OR one factor exactly balanced the other.

The population of the UK has gone up from 50 million to 60 million in this time. That's an increase of 10 million (60-50 in case you are wondering).

It is claimed that 5 million of this is due to migration from overseas*, if this was true that would leave 5 million as the increase due to births exceeding deaths. That's 10% on average across the UK (50+5=55 now divide by 50 and times by 100).

Therefore unless there is something particularly odd about Wakefield, we would expect the increase in population to be more or less 10%. Instead it is three percent. That's suspiciously low.

It is more than likely that most of this difference is the result of people moving away from the area, probably on account of being told to "get on their bike and look for work".

Again you seem to ignore births and deaths perhaps nobody is ever born or dies where you live.

Let's try it again but dumbed down a bit.

The population would remain stable only if there was no net migration AND the number of births and deaths was the same OR one factor exactly balanced the other.

The population of the UK has gone up from 50 million to 60 million in this time. That's an increase of 10 million (60-50 in case you are wondering).

It is claimed that 5 million of this is due to migration from overseas*, if this was true that would leave 5 million as the increase due to births exceeding deaths. That's 10% on average across the UK (50+5=55 now divide by 50 and times by 100).

Therefore unless there is something particularly odd about Wakefield, we would expect the increase in population to be more or less 10%. Instead it is three percent. That's suspiciously low.

It is more than likely that most of this difference is the result of people moving away from the area, probably on account of being told to "get on their bike and look for work".